Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

1…1314161819…21

Comments

  • #452
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    It can cost at least 2,000 euro for a late term surgical abortion which may be required in the case of severe abnormalities. How many families have that kind of ready cash to hand, while also being able to organise flights, child care, time off work and possible extra sick leave (which may be unpaid) to recouperate?

    Some people would want to take a serious look at their empathy levels. Why should a pregnant rape victim have to go abroad at her own expense to get an abortion?


  • #453
    trickymicky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 88 ✭✭trickymicky


    me personally im pro choice. at the end of the day its the womans body and it is their choice at the end of day and i know some people will start saying the father should have a choice too but its the woman that carries the child simples.


  • #454
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    squod wrote: »
    Many people/groups/individuals lobby government over many things. It's not some conspiracy theory involving the church trying to get you. Your thirst for thousands of abortions on demand isn't palatable for normal everyday folk. That's the reality.

    Oh hey, you're back.

    I presume you're about to apologise for your shoddy misrepresentation of abortion figures from earlier? As well as finally answer the question Nodin asked you a dozen times or so, but have up until now run away from?

    Oh, wait, you put me on ignore rather than accept your own cock-up. Never mind.


  • #455
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    squod wrote: »
    Your thirst for thousands of abortions on demand isn't palatable for normal everyday folk.

    Would you ever listen to yourself. Seriously, read back what you just said and blush.

    Yeah, no one is concerned with women's rights to bodily autonomy or women in desperate circumstances having other options or women with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality being cared for in their own country.


    We're just desperate to see thousands and thousands of abortions. Can't get enough of them. The more abortions the merrier.

    And this right here, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion.


  • #456
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh hey, you're back.

    I presume you're about to apologise for your shoddy misrepresentation of abortion figures from earlier? As well as finally answer the question Nodin asked you a dozen times or so, but have up until now run away from?

    Oh, wait, you put me on ignore rather than accept your own cock-up. Never mind.

    Here's a very simple counter. If this doesn't shock you I think there could be some kind of problem with your emotional processes.

    http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    darced
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • #458
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I expect we'll both be banned for thinking it's disgusting.


  • #459
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Here's a very simple counter. If this doesn't shock you I think there could be some kind of problem with your emotional processes.

    http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/


    Or we've a different world view. Whats your view on abortion exactly phill?
    Because it strikes me as a bit much you popping in here now and again without even having the decency to explain yourself.
    Phillewinn wrote:
    Many people abusing UKs abortion laws. Making a nice few quid doing it too. Theres no evidence the 4,000 terminations of Irish unborn fetouses are all
    legitimate or warranted..

    Would you care to make an estimate as to how many are or aren't "legitimate or warranted"?

    For further clarity, do please explain what you classify as being "legitimate" and "warranted".


  • #460
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Here's a very simple counter. If this doesn't shock you I think there could be some kind of problem with your emotional processes.

    http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

    Or maybe I'm not terribly impressed with big numbers. Especially when people like squod lie about them, as I've demonstrated (and for which he put me on ignore, like any rational person does when they're caught out telling porkies).

    Nobody's arguing that you haven't shown us a big number. But if that's your whole argument you're going to have to try harder. Is that number big relative to other numbers? Compared to the nearly 8,000,000,000 of us that are already here it's just peanuts. Where are the biggest increases? What are the reasons behind it? How's that region's poverty level, sex ed. and accessibility to contraception? squod was whining about understanding basic maths, seemingly unaware that the only thing that matters in this sort of thing is statistics, a very different thing altogether. Perhaps his lack of statistical knowledge is why he got his earlier numbers so wrong. I'd hate to think he was deliberately presenting a false picture after all.

    As squod's own links showed, banning abortion does nothing to lower abortion rates. Education and contraception do. If you're going to insist on getting all high and mighty over something, you should probably pick the right thing to rant about instead of this short-sighted charging off half-cocked.

    If you're not willing to be rational about things, you're not helping. There was a lovely couple of pages of really good discussion the other day, both sides were being pleasant and rational and bringing up actual arguments. You and squod missed it. I'm sure it was just coincidence.


  • #461
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sarky wrote: »

    ..banning abortion does nothing to lower abortion rates. Education and contraception do.

    Riiiiiiiiiight. Sweden abortion is legal. Rate is 25%. Ireland abortion is illegal. Rate is 5%. [4,000+ UK terminations per year, 73,000+ live births.]


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm sure you can back up those numbers. And without lying too, like our rational friend squod did.


  • #463
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh, but first you should probably answer Nodin. You've been avoiding his questions for ages. That's just rude.


  • #464
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm sure you can back up those numbers. And without lying too, like our rational friend squod did.

    Do you not have Google where you are? Are you in some magical place free from morals, emotions or common sense?

    www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html


  • #465
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm on the internet, where it's common f*cking courtesy when making a claim to provide your evidence. But go answer Nodin first. He's been waiting patiently.


  • #466
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm on the internet, where it's common f*cking courtesy when making a claim to provide your evidence. But go answer Nodin first. He's been waiting patiently.

    Why the fvck should I show courtesy to you?


  • #467
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Because it's what civilised people do during a debate? Because you probably don't want to be seen as a douchebag when I'm being quite reasonable and civilised towards you? Because it will stop this thread getting cluttered up with petty one-liners and baseless claims?

    But you're probably right. Show me all the contempt you like while you dodge questions and provide poor sources (when you bother producing any at all), it's not like there are hundreds of people watching and judging you, and forming opinions about what they see.

    Edit: And provide better sources than the personal website of a man's archived letters to the editor, alongside a link to the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm sure Mr. Johnston is a nice man (dislike of Obama, abortion and climate change aside), but he is not the WHO. Poor sources give you a poor argument.


  • #468
    Doctor Strange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Doctor Strange


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I expect we'll both be banned for thinking it's disgusting.

    Stop trying to make a martyr of yourself. It's a pathetically fallacious argument.


  • #469
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I expect we'll both be banned for thinking it's disgusting.

    Mod: Banned for repeatedly questioning moderation and alleging bias.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #470
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Now he'll never answer Nodin's questions :(


  • #471
    murraykil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 460 ✭✭murraykil


    Nodin wrote: »
    The states laws are heavily influenced directly and indirectly by the catholic church eg contraception, divorce, homosexuality, abortion. This is done by the indirect influence of indoctrination and direct lobbying.

    Have you never noticed direct lobbying by the church?

    3 down, 1 to go!

    Out of interest, does anyone remember if the RCC kicked up a fuss when homosexuality was decriminalised?


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    lovesfatgirls
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 65 ✭✭lovesfatgirls


    we cant?! thats news to me o_O
    then again if you cut out all the media and can write your name its pretty much straight forward
    yes/no

    silly nobody has a say in the matter either way
    (cept the church) conflict of interest? *cough cough*

    nothing stopping us from being rational though. is there?


  • #473
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    How can we have a rational debate about the beginning and ending of life when we are irrational about our respect for each other in between. Babies are beautiful elderly need support. **** everyone in between.

    It's insane the way we behave and we are focusing on abortion!


  • #474
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    How can we have a rational debate about the beginning and ending of life when we are irrational about our respect for each other in between.

    Pretty sure that this is about respect for life. It's also also about the human rights of the unborn, their rights as laid out in the constitution and the utter contempt being shown to them by people posting on this thread.


  • #475
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    squod wrote: »
    Pretty sure that this is about respect for life. It's also also about the human rights of the unborn, their rights as laid out in the constitution and the utter contempt being shown to them by people posting on this thread.

    How can a lump of jellified cells a few weeks old be classified as having human rights? That is a ludicrus proposition.
    Respect for life should start with the life and life choices of the woman, any woman should be freely able to to request and recieve a termination of pregnancy up to a certain point in her pregnancy.
    the only contempt I have read in this thread is from those anti women taliban types who are determined to turn back the clock on the rights of women.


  • #476
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    WileyCoyote wrote: »
    the only contempt I have read in this thread is from those anti women taliban types who are determined to turn back the clock on the rights of women.

    Unborn have rights. Women have rights. The two are not incompatible would you believe. It's pro-choice types that are trying to tun back the clock and that's the actual reality.


  • #477
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    squod wrote: »
    Unborn have rights. Women have rights. The two are not incompatible would you believe. It's pro-choice types that are trying to tun back the clock and that's the actual reality.

    In what way are we trying to turn back the clock?


  • #478
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    kylith wrote: »
    In what way are we trying to turn back the clock?

    Yeah, turning it to the present would be a start actually.


  • #479
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Obliq wrote: »
    Yeah, turning it to the present would be a start actually.

    I'm just very curious how us having access to something we've never had is 'turning back the clock'.


  • #480
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Did anyone hear the apology from RTE Morning Ireland this morning to the Iona Institute? Or was it to the New Zealand professor guy?

    Turns out a Morning Ireland presenter misrepresented what he had been saying and used that in another interview with Prof Casey from Iona.

    Helps explain "why we can't have a rational....." Things are just so delicately worded. One thing can be turned to mean another.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I think that clock stopped somewhere around 1970


Advertisement